On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 17:16 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 23:13 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
> > I vote and take other actions as follows:
> >> 6615 1 2.0 G.* Gr
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I would think that fact that this could refer to either a major arcana
>> card or an exploit card means the conditional doesn't work. Even if e
>> doesn't have both cards, we have to evaluate the co
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I would think that fact that this could refer to either a major arcana
> card or an exploit card means the conditional doesn't work. Even if e
> doesn't have both cards, we have to evaluate the conditional as if e
> possibly did (am I saying that clearly?
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
6615 1 2.0 G.* GreenThe only winning move
>>> AGAINST x my voting limit. If I have a card that allows me to veto this
>>> proposal, I veto it (by playing a card if necessary).
I would think that fact that this could refer to either
c. wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 23:13 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
>> I vote and take other actions as follows:
>>> 6615 1 2.0 G.* GreenThe only winning move
>> AGAINST x
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 23:13 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
> I vote and take other actions as follows:
>> 6615 1 2.0 G.* Green The only winning move
> AGAINST x my voting limit.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I'm more concerned about losing the winning condition before I get all my FRC
> points backlog awarded so that I can win.
Does this mean we have to keep every old and hoary win method until
everyone who could conceivably win by it gets eir pat on the back?
On 01/19/2010 02:06 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
6615 1 2.0 G.* GreenThe only winning move
AGAINST (at least one of Junta/Clout/Proposal should be kept)
I'm not too concerned about that given that with winning unsecured, a
proposal can just redefine the winning condition before
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> 6616 0 2.0 G.GreenErgs and Fees
> FOR [I don't see why this is II = 0...]
Sorry, I explained when I submitted it: without reports I was
uncertain if I had any distrib-u-matics so didn't want uncertainty
getting in the way, give
9 matches
Mail list logo
